Confidentiality Clause in Information Technology Act

Section 69 (A) of the Information Technology Act 2000

• Under Information Technology Act 2000, the Centre can issue blocking orders to social media intermediaries for following reasons:
  • Interest of sovereignty and integrity of India
  • Security of the state
  • Friendly relations with foreign states
  • Defence of India
  • Maintaining public order
  • Preventing incitement to any cognizable offence
• Blocking Procedure:
  • Section 69A enables the Centre to ask any agency of the government, or any intermediary, to block access to the public of any information generated, transmitted, received or stored or hosted on any computer resource.
  • The term ‘intermediaries’ includes providers of telecom service, network service, Internet service and web hosting, besides search engines, online marketplaces, online payment and auction sites and cyber cafes.
  • Under the rules, request made by the government is sent to a review committee, which can issue directions in writing. Blocking orders under the law are confidential in nature.
• Punishment: In case the intermediary fails to comply with the direction, they will be punished with imprisonment which may be extended upto seven years along with fine.

Information Technology Act Rules 2009

• Information Technology Act(Procedures and Safeguards for Blocking of Access to Information by Public) Rules 2009
• Authority: The officer authorized by the Union Government to issue directions for the blocking of the information contemplated by the Rules is the Group Coordinator, Cyberlaw Division in the Department of IT, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Government of India.
  • The officer is authorized to direct any Government Agency or intermediary to block access to information, on receipt of any request from the Nodal Officer or a competent court.
• Nodal officer: Every organization must have a Nodal officer to carry out the functions provided under the rules.
• Complaint: The complaint must be submitted in a written form and it shall not be incomplete. It shall be examined by the committee chaired by the designated officer.
• Procedure: The designated officer is required to identify the person who has hosted the content along with the computer resource on which it is hosted.
• Notice shall be served to the party for appearance. If they fail to appear, special recommendations shall be given in writing as per the request received upon nodal office.
  • In emergency cases, the designated officer shall have the powers to issue orders to block the content from public access.

Information Technology Act History

• The court was hearing a petition moved by Twitter against orders issued by the Ministry of Electronic and Information Technology to block 39 Twitter accounts in 2021.
• The orders were issued under Rule 16 of the Information Technology (Procedures and Safeguards for Blocking of Access to Information by Public) Rules 2009, which requires strict confidentiality regarding all blocking requests.
• Company’s stand: Twitter says that Ministry of Information and Technology has failed to show how content it wants taken down falls under Section 69 (A).
  • The company added that blocking of information from public access without first issuing notice to the users was a violation of the freedom of speech.
  • The company also said that blocking of entire accounts over a single tweet went against the doctrine of proportionality.
• Stand of the union government: The government argues that Twitter being a foreign platform cannot seek freedom of speech and other fundamental rights available to Indian citizens for the users of the platform.

Sharing is caring!